The Evolving Surgical Paradigm of Scleral Allograft Bio-Tissue Use in Ophthalmic Surgery: Techniques and Clinical Indications for Ab-Externo and Ab-Interno Scleral Reinforcement

References

• Freedman J. Scleral patch grafts with Molteno setons. Ophthalmic Surg. 1987;18(7):532–534. PMID: 3627691.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wigton E, C Swanner J, Joiner W, et al. Outcomes of shunt tube coverage with glycerol preserved cornea versus pericardium. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(4):258–261. PMID: 22955016. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31826a96e8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pakravan M, Yazdani S, Shahabi C, Yaseri M. Superior versus inferior Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):208–213. PMID: 19062098. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wishart PK, Choudhary A, Wong D. Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma: a 7-year audit. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(9):1174–1179. PMID: 19965829. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.165357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen QD, Foster CS. Scleral patch graft in the management of necrotizing scleritis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1999;39(1):109–131. PMID: 10083910. doi:10.1097/00004397-199903910-00011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sangwan VS, Jain V, Gupta P. Structural and functional outcome of scleral patch graft. Eye. 2007;21(7):930–935. PMID: 16601740. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karaca U, Usta G. The usability of lamellar scleral autograft in ocular perforation treatment. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(2):377–383. PMID: 34176032. doi:10.1007/s10792-021-01922-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge C, Sutton G, Devasahayam R, et al. The use of donor scleral patch in ophthalmic surgery. Cell Tissue Bank. 2017;18(1):119–128. PMID: 27878655. doi:10.1007/s10561-016-9603-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romanchuk KG, Nair P, Grahn B. How long can donor sclera be safely stored? Cornea. 2003;22(6):569–572. PMID: 12883353. doi:10.1097/00003226-200308000-00016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Töteberg-Harms M, Bredehorn-Mayr T. Preparation and use of human sclera grafts in ophthalmic surgery. Dev Ophthalmol. 2009;43:105–108. Epub 2009 Jun 3. PMID: 19494641. doi:10.1159/000223843
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watson PG, Young RD. Scleral structure, organisation and disease. A review. Exp Eye Res. 2004;78(3):609–623. PMID: 15106941. doi:10.1016/s0014-4835(03)00212-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boote C, Sigal IA, Grytz R, Hua Y, Nguyen TD, Girard MJA. Scleral structure and biomechanics. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020;74:100773. PMID: 31412277; PMCID: PMC7187923. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.100773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rada JA, Achen VR, Penugonda S, Schmidt RW, Mount BA. Proteoglycan composition in the human sclera during growth and aging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(7):1639–1648. PMID: 10845580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coudrillier B, Pijanka J, Jefferys J, et al. Collagen structure and mechanical properties of the human sclera: analysis for the effects of age. J Biomech Eng. 2015;137(4):041006. PMID: 25531905; PMCID: PMC4340195. doi:10.1115/1.4029430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen TW, Edelhauser HF, Lim JI, Geroski DH. Human scleral permeability. Effects of age, cryotherapy, transscleral diode laser, and surgical thinning. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36(9):1893–1903. PMID: 7543465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prausnitz MR, Noonan JS. Permeability of cornea, sclera, and conjunctiva: a literature analysis for drug delivery to the eye. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87(12):1479–1488. PMID: 10189253. doi:10.1021/js9802594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirmbeck T, Cruz AA. Biomechanical and histological evaluation of glycerol-preserved human sclerae. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007;70(6):988–990. PMID: 18235912. doi:10.1590/s0004-27492007000600019
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coudrillier B, Tian J, Alexander S, Myers KM, Quigley HA, Nguyen TD. Biomechanics of the human posterior sclera: age- and glaucoma-related changes measured using inflation testing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(4):1714–1728. PMID: 22395883; PMCID: PMC3630906. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Alhasso D, Knappett J, Campanelli M, Rama P. Regional variation in the biomechanical properties of the human sclera. Exp Eye Res. 2010;90(5):624–633. PMID: 20219460. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2010.02.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakney AK, Swartzlander MD, Bryant SJ. The effects of substrate stiffness on the in vitro activation of macrophages and in vivo host response to poly(ethylene glycol)-based hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100(6):1375–1386. PMID: 22407522; PMCID: PMC3339197. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34104
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, Haller E, Margo CE. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(8):1081–1084. PMID: 10922202. doi:10.1001/archopht.118.8.1081
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernandes JB, Matayoshi S, Osaka JT, Tolosa EC, Nunes TP, Moura Eda M. Comparative analysis between sclera treated with glycerin and sclera treated with gamma irradiation, alkali and glycerin in the reconstruction of anophthalmic socket: experimental study in rabbits]. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007. 70(4):639–647. Portuguese. PMID: 17906761. doi:10.1590/s0004-27492007000400015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miekka SI, Forng RY, Rohwer RG, et al. Inactivation of viral and prion pathogens by gamma-irradiation under conditions that maintain the integrity of human albumin. Vox Sang. 2003;84(1):36–44. PMID: 12542732. doi:10.1046/j.1423-0410.2003.00256.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frota C, Lima Filho AA, Dias AB, Lourenço AC, Antecka E, Burnier MN. Freeze-drying as an alternative method of human sclera preservation. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008;71(2):137–141. PMID: 18516408. doi:10.1590/s0004-27492008000200002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colvard DM, Waller RR, Campbell RJ, Friedt R. Sterilization of scleral homografts with ionizing irradiation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1979;87(4):494–496. PMID: 443314. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(79)90237-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaku M, Netland PA, Ishida K, Rhee DJ. Risk factors for tube exposure as a late complication of glaucoma drainage implant surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:547–553. PMID: 27099461; PMCID: PMC4820194. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S104029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, et al.; Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Postoperative complications in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study during 5 years of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(12):1357–1367. PMID: 35835336; PMCID: PMC9691562. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Tsai JC, et al. The Ahmed versus baerveldt study: five-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2093–2102. PMID: 27544023. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MF, Doyle JW, Ticrney JW. A comparison of glaucoma drainage implant tube coverage. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(2):143–147. PMID: 11912362. doi:10.1097/00061198-200204000-00010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panarelli JF, Banitt MR, Sidoti PA. Scleral fistula closure at the time of glaucoma drainage device tube repositioning: a novel technique. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(11):1447–1451. PMID: 23143444. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.2219
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubey S, Prasanth B, Acharya MC, Narula R. Conjunctival erosion after glaucoma drainage device surgery: a feasible option. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(7):355–357. PMID: 23571238; PMCID: PMC3759109. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.99852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Rourke M, Moran S, Collins N, Doyle A. Bleb reconstruction using donor scleral patch graft for late bleb leak and hypotony. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(3):1039–1046. PMID: 32450728. doi:10.1177/1120672120924343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pathak Ray V, Badakere SV. Long-term outcomes of blebs repaired with scleral patch graft and conjunctival advancement in late-onset leak post-trabeculectomy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(9):2496–2501. PMID: 34427251; PMCID: PMC8544101. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_148_21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh JH, Kim JC. Repair of scleromalacia using preserved scleral graft with amniotic membrane transplantation. Cornea. 2003;22(4):288–293. PMID: 12792468. doi:10.1097/00003226-200305000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahay P, Dhanda S, Maharana PK, Titiyal JS. Intercalary staphyloma in Marfan syndrome: a dreaded complication of scleral incision. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67(7):1161–1162. PMID: 31238437; PMCID: PMC6611239. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1672_18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soll DB. Donor sclera in enucleation surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1974;92(6):494–495. PMID: 4279648. doi:10.1001/archopht.1974.01010010508009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Inkster CF, Ng SG, Leatherbarrow B. Primary banked scleral patch graft in the prevention of exposure of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(2):389–392. PMID: 11825828. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00904-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenzel RR, Miller GR, Rubenzik R. Cicatricial upper lid entropion. Treated with banked scleral graft. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93(10):999–1000. PMID: 1180758. doi:10.1001/archopht.1975.01010020783008
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dryden RM, Soll DB. The use of scleral transplantation in cicatricial entropion and eyelid retraction. Trans Sect Ophthalmol Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1977;83(4 Pt 1):669–678. PMID: 898487.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doxanas MT, Dryden RM. The use of sclera in the treatment of dysthyroid eyelid retraction. Ophthalmology. 1981;88(9):887–894. PMID: 7301305. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(81)80002-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman KA, Putterman AM, Farber MD. Surgical treatment of thyroid-related lower eyelid retraction: a modified approach. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;8(4):278–286. PMID: 1476977. doi:10.1097/00002341-199212000-00007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travassos AS, Regadas I, Alfaiate M, Silva ED, Proença R, Travassos A. Optic pit: novel surgical management of complicated cases. Retina. 2013;33(8):1708–1714. PMID: 23644559. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e31828e699c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babu N, Kohli P, Ramasamy K. Comparison of various surgical techniques for optic disc pit maculopathy: vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling alone versus inverted ILM flap ‘plug’ versus autologous scleral ‘plug’. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(11):1567–1573. PMID: 32029434. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi M, Iezzi R, Baratz KH. Endoscleral Patch Graft: a Novel Closure for Complex Pars Plana Scleral Defects. Ophthalmol Retina. 2017;1(6):564–566. PMID: 31047458. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2017.03.008
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heine L. Die Cyklodialyse, eine neue Glaukomoperation. Deutsche Med Woch. 1905;31:824.
   Google Scholar
• De Francesco T, Ahmed IIK. Surgical augmentation of the suprachoroidal space: a novel material and implant. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:2483–2492. PMID: 37637970; PMCID: PMC10456019. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S409958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vold S, Ahmed II, Craven ER, et al.; CyPass Study Group. Two-year COMPASS trial results: supraciliary microstenting with phacoemulsification in patients with open-angle glaucoma and cataracts. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2103–2112. PMID: 27506486. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ianchulev T, Weinreb RN, Kamthan G, Calvo E, Pamnani R, Ahmed IK. Biotissue stent for supraciliary outflow in open-angle glaucoma patients: surgical procedure and first clinical results of an aqueous drainage biostent. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023:bjo-2022–322536. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36593090. doi:10.1136/bjo-2022-322536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denis P, Hirneiß C, Durr GM, et al. Two-year outcomes of the MINIject drainage system for uncontrolled glaucoma from the STAR-I first-in-human trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(1):65–70. PMID: 33011690; PMCID: PMC8685654. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316888
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lass JH, Benetz BA, He J, et al. Corneal endothelial cell loss and morphometric changes 5 years after phacoemulsification with or without cypass micro-stent. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;208:211–218. PMID: 31377278. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnicer-Lombarte A, Barone DG, Dimov IB, et al. Mechanical matching of implant to host minimises foreign body reaction. bioRxiv. 2019;829648.
   Google Scholar
• Carnicer-Lombarte A, Chen ST, Malliaras GG, Barone DG. Foreign body reaction to implanted biomaterials and its impact in nerve neuroprosthetics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:622524. PMID: 33937212; PMCID: PMC8081831. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.622524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ianchulev T, Ahmed II, Kamthan G, Calvo E, Pamnani R, Ahmed IK. Novel suprachoroidal biostent for reinforced cyclodialysis: microinterventional technique and first-in-human results. Am Acad Ophthalmol Meet. 2023;108(2):217–222.
   Google Scholar